An ecological crisis legislated

The amendments to the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 (FCA 1980) approved by the Lok Sabha recently and the Biological Diversity Act of 2002 approved by Parliament have sparked controversy. While environmentalists and other critics argue that these amendments will sound the death knell of India’s forests and biodiversity, Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav defended the amendments, stating that this is to facilitate the ease of doing business and enable India to fulfil its emissions reduction pledge to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by raising the forest cover of the country and creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by the year 2030.

Whether this will accelerate the commercialization and denudation of India’s forests for the benefit of corporates/private entities to the detriment of indigenous and local communities or promote the conservation of our forests and biodiversity needs to be seen.

One of the significant changes made to the FCA in 1980 relates to the definition of forests. In a ruling given in 1996, the Supreme Court adopted the dictionary meaning of forests to include all forest lands under the jurisdiction of the Forest or other government departments and other entities over which FCA 1980 was applicable and where prior permission was needed from the Central Government to divert forests to non-forest uses. This amendment has now made it easier to divert forest lands not under the jurisdiction of the forest departments or listed as forests in government records for non-forest uses without seeking the central government’s permission. Consequently, about 27.6 per cent of the 7.14 lakh sq km of forests identified by the Forest Survey of India will lose their protection status.

Other changes include allowing the diversion of forests for strategic and defence needs such as building roads and other infrastructure projects in border areas. While one cannot question the need to build infrastructure for the defence and security needs of the country, one has concerns about whether this will open the floodgates to divert forests in the Eastern Himalayas biodiversity hotspot and ecologically fragile areas. We are witness to the havoc and trail of destruction in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand due to the construction of roads and hydroelectric projects, ignoring their adverse environmental and social impacts, and despite these areas being in high seismic zones.

Another stated aim is to accelerate the growth of plantations in these denotified forest lands. Plantation crops such as eucalyptus and teak have low ecological and biodiversity values and can never replace natural forests. Other reasons are that it will help provide essential infrastructure for local communities and forest staff, as well as encourage the establishment of zoos, safari parks, and eco-tourism. Eco-tourism, if not well regulated, can degrade the environment through the construction of hotels, resorts, and other infrastructure. Increased tourist flow can put immense pressure on these habitats, aggravate the problems of littering and pollution, and disturb animal movements.

The government had also tried to reward states by incentivizing the diversion of forests for non-forest uses. Despite professing to conserve forests, we have seen how forest and environmental laws in India have been systematically weakened in the past few years for the benefit of crony capitalists and the private sector.

The Biodiversity Diversity Act of 2002 (BDA 2002) classified forest and wildlife offences into cognisable and non-bailable offences, with offenders liable to be imprisoned for up to 5 years, fined, or both. The amended Act decriminalises forest and wildlife offences by doing away with imprisonment, and all offenders can now get away by just paying a fine (Rs 1–50 lakhs) without the ignominy of being jailed.

Global research studies show that the probability of a poacher being caught is very low (0–5 per cent). Added to this, the financial benefits of poaching are high. For instance, a study in the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania showed that surveyed households reported the average annual income from the sale of crops to be around $79, from livestock, $61, and from small businesses, around $118, whereas it was as high as $425 from the sale of wild meat. The amendment will therefore incentivize poaching and accelerate species declines.

It is stated that these changes will encourage indigenous medicines and foreign investment in the ayurvedic industry and thereby generate more foreign exchange and job opportunities. However, there is concern as to whether this will accelerate the degradation of our forests and biodiversity. Scientific and media reports suggest that many wildlife plants and flowers are becoming extinct in the Western Ghats and Eastern Himalayas biodiversity hotspots due to illegal and unsustainable harvesting. While corporations and foreign firms will benefit from exploiting our biological resources and traditional knowledge, tribal and indigenous communities, who are the knowledge keepers, will receive no or low benefits, as shown by experience. It is also not clear what precautions are being taken to address biopiracy.

Although the government talks about being inclusive and following a participatory process, tribal and indigenous communities and gram sabhas will be effectively excluded from the decision-making process to divert forest to non-forest uses in forest areas where tribals and indigenous communities reside, such as in the Northeastern states of India. Thus, the amendments are contrary to the spirit of the Forest Rights Act of 2006.

Every year, when World Environment Day is observed, our leaders, irrespective of their political affiliation, make a pledge to protect the environment. However, once that is over, they make every effort to violate or bend forest and environmental rules for short-term gains, benefitting only a few.

(The writer is an economist)